CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01973.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01973.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01973.a1

Aug 3, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant had seven delinquent debts totaling approximately $22,000. The appeal affirmed the denial, finding that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to overturn the initial decision regarding his financial responsibility.

Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20(a) were raised, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(c) and AG ¶ 20(d) were applied. However, the applicant failed to establish a sufficient track record of payments towards his past-due debts. Most of these debts had remained unresolved for several years, with the applicant only recently taking steps toward their resolution.

The denial was upheld because the applicant's arguments primarily focused on disagreeing with the judge's weighing of the evidence, rather than demonstrating harmful error in the initial decision. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not demonstrate a sufficient track record of payments towards his past-due debts.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's financial issues were not resolved in a timely manner.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 19, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 4, 2020
Decision dateAug 3, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Overturn Initial Decision Regarding Financial Responsibility
Disagreement with Judge's Weighing of Evidence Does Not Constitute Harmful Error

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued against the Judge's findings but did not specify any harmful errors. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful errors in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenges the Judge's findings of fact without identifying specific findings.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant did not identify any specific harmful errors in the Judge's decision and that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The decision was affirmed as sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: In his appeal brief, Applicant states he is challenging the Judge’s findings of fact but does not identify any specific finding that he is disputing. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01973.a1 DATE: 08/03/2020

DATE: August 3, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) -------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01973 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 19, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On May 4, 2020, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had seven delinquent debts totaling about $22,000. In responding to the SOR, he admitted five of those debts and denied the others. Noting that one debt was resolved and another was current and being resolved, the Judge found in favor of Applicant on those two debts, which totaled a little over $2,000, and found against him on the other debts. The Judge concluded that most of Applicant’s debts have remained unresolved for several years, that he only recently took steps to resolve them, and that he did not establish a sufficient track record of payments towards his past-due debts. In his appeal brief, Applicant states he is challenging the Judge’s findings of fact but does not identify any specific finding that he is disputing. Instead, his arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. He contends, for example, that he has no criminal record, that unemployment contributed to his financial problems, that all his negative credit entries are years old, that he has a 91% on-time payment history, and that he received credit counseling advice to bring all active account current before addressing closed accounts. He argues that he has established a sufficient track record of making payments on his debts. The Judge addressed many of these matters in his decision. In essence, Applicant is advocating for an alternative weighing of the evidence. An applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-00110 at 6 (App. Bd. Mar. 31, 2020). Moreover, Applicant’s arguments fail to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. Id. at 5. Applicant has failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful errors. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board